Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 376, 377, 342, 506, 34

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 376, 377, 342, 506 & 34---Rape, unnatural offence, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, common intention---Bail, dismissal of---Allegations of abduction and unnatural offence were levelled against the accused/petitioner---Apparently the FIR suffered a delay of almost twenty-seven days---Perusal of the document revealed that complainant, a teenage boy, reported the egregious incident on 02-07-2025 and had justified the said lapse of time by stating that he was under serious threat extended by the accused/petitioner---Keeping the said statement of the victimized boy, the record of the case was examined---During the perusal of record, statement of witness caught the attention---Said witness had corroborated the statement of victim boy regarding the alleged intimidation for taking leverage---Said witness also stated about some video recording of the alleged abhorrent incident and the alleged threat of the accused/petitioner for displaying the same on social media---Regarding abduction for un-natural lust, the statement of the victim was corroborated by the witness---There was prima facie evidence of abduction and un-natural offence on record and offence under S. 367-A, P.P.C provided capital punishment---Delay in lodging of the report was explained by the complainant and same was corroborated by the witness---Other point regarding age of the accused/petitioner was not convincing---Keeping in view the particular nature of the offence, point of juvenility was out of consideration---Mere fact that accused/petitioner was a juvenile could be considered in other offences, but in a case where the accused was charged for un-natural offence and prima facie evidence supported the allegation, it would be erroneous to declare the accused a juvenile---Without recording and discussing this point any further, lest the Trial Court would get influenced, the matter was left at the discretion of Trial Court---However, keeping in view the gravity of offences, the accused/petitioner could not be granted benefit of him being one year below the age of adulthood at this stage---Bail application being…